The Doña Ana County Planning and Zoning Commission in a 4-3 vote reduced the proposed minimum lot size for subdivisions on rural land from 10 acres to 2 acres after farmers and developers vocally expressed their dislike of the 10-acre minimum. They argued it could hurt their acreage's development potential, as well as a landowner's borrowing capacity on the land. Farmers said the potential to one day sell farm fields for residential development is important because farmers often use land as a form of savings account to be cashed out when they retire or need money for farm operations.

The 10-acre minimum would have meant that — absent an involved rezoning process for a particular parcel of land — one home per 10 acres could have been built, if a property owner wanted to subdivide the acreage under a conventional subdivision model, according to county staff. Under the reduction OK'd Thursday, one home per two acres could be built.

The P&Z commission's vote means the proposal for farm land now gets folded into the broader, proposed county Unified Development Code. The 450-page document, in its fifth and final draft, is headed toward an up or down vote by the zoning board in late September. Even then, the P&Z's decision will be a recommendation; the Doña Ana County Board of County Commissioners will have the ultimate say on the document.

More than one way

A conventional subdivision wouldn't be the only way to subdivide land under the proposed UDC. A new type of subdivision called "community types" — which promote walkability, mixed-use development and incorporation of open space — also would be a route to develop land, including farm acreage, county staff have said. The smallest-size of parcel that can be subdivided into smaller lots under this route is 10 acres. This figure — because it was the same as the minimum lot size proposed for rural acreage, until that value was reduced on Thursday — has prompted confusion among the public. While the two references to 10 acres were both related to subdivisions, they actually stemmed from different provisions in the proposed UDC.

P&Z Commissioner Robert Czerniak, who voted against the two-acre minimum for conventional subdivisions, said he disagreed that a 10-acre minimum would have decreased property values for agricultural land. He contended that the community-type subdivision option would maximize the development potential for a piece of rural property, actually prompting agricultural property values to increase. If passed, there'd have to be an education process for bankers and appraisers to get up to speed on the new model for subdividing land and the value it could add to land, but "they can't ignore it."

"There is no loss of value," he said.

P&Z Commissioner Greg Daviet, a local farmer, opposed the 10-acre minimum and backed the two-acre minimum for rural land. He said he agrees with Czerniak that the community-type model is a good option for development in the county. But he wasn't positive that community types themselves would maintain farmers' property values.

"I'm not willing to risk the farmers' land values in this valley that I'm right," he said, referring to his favorable view of community types. "If I'm wrong, it's super bad for them."

Prior to the vote on reducing the 10 acre-minimum to 2 acres, Daviet attempted to reduce the minimum to 1 acre — an amendment that failed on a 6-2 vote.

County staff had said the 10-acre minimum lot size for agricultural land was aimed at helping to preserve the county's rural character.

Opponents of the 10-acre minimum lot size for rural land had acknowledged that the proposed UDC would have allowed for higher-density development than one home per 10 acres. But they said it would have required a zone change, a more-difficult process than subdividing under the community-type model, likely forcing land owners to choose a community type over a conventional subdivision.

"I would truly like it to be more of an option," said Commission Chairman Brent Westmoreland.

A number of attendees said they didn't mind community types as an option, but they thought the choice between whether to build a conventional subdivision or a community type should be driven by the market, not by the proposed UDC.

Voting for the two-acre minimum lot size on agricultural land were Daviet, Westmoreland, MaryAnn Galindo and John Townsend. Czerniak and P&Z Commissioners Mel Acosta and Bill Zarges opposed it.

Spanish translation sought

Mesquite resident Arturo Uribe addressed commissioners Thursday, saying he was concerned that the early meetings about the UDC development incorporated Spanish translation for attendees. But that's not taking place now. In addition, the 450-page proposal is written only in English, not Spanish, which means Spanish-speaking residents of the county won't be able to review it.

"They would like to participate," he said.

Uribe also encouraged the P&Z to move more slowly in reviewing the voluminous document.

"I don't know if I'm in favor of this UDC," he said. "I don't understand it."

Doña Ana County Community Development Director Daniel Hortert said the county is unlikely to afford the cost of Spanish translation for the UDC, but there will be a translator available for public hearings on the overall UDC this month.

Comment period extended

Also Thursday, Doña Ana County Planning and Zoning Commission extended a period for the public to submit written comments on the proposed UDC from Friday to Sept. 9.

With questions about the proposal or to provide input, contact the county's community development department at 575-647-7350. Also, visit https://donaanacounty.org/UDC for information. Hortert has encouraged property owners to contact the county to check what zoning their property would be zoned under the proposed UDC.

The P&Z is set to host two hearings on the proposed UDC at 6 p.m. Sept. 20 and 9 a.m. Sept. 22 at the Doña Ana County Government Center, 845 N. Motel Blvd.